Supreme Court Rules Racial District Gerrymandering Violates Constitution
April 29, 2026 | Sundance |
Today, in a very important 6-3 decision at the Supreme Court [Full pdf Ruling Here] the high court ruled in Louisiana -vs Callais that congressional districts drawn by considering race are an unconstitutional gerrymander. Race should not be a consideration in the drawing of district boundaries.
Chief Justice John Roberts had previously described Louisiana’s 6th Congressional District as a “snake” that stretches more than 200 miles (320 kilometers) to link parts of Shreveport, Alexandria, Lafayette and Baton Rouge. “That map is an unconstitutional gerrymander,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion.
Justice Elena Kagan wrote the dissent for the three leftist, activist justices. “The consequences are likely to be far-reaching and grave. Today’s decision renders Section 2 all but a dead letter,” Kagan wrote, referencing Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
(Via Politico) – […] Alito said a revised interpretation of Section 2 was needed in part because of the Supreme Court’s 2019 ruling that the Constitution does not prohibit gerrymandering for partisan purposes. As a result, he suggested, plaintiffs in voting discrimination lawsuits are now often “dressing their political-gerrymandering claims in racial garb.”
“Failing to account for political considerations in redistricting … can allow plaintiffs to undo a State’s legitimate, non-racial decisions under the banner of Section 2,” Alito wrote, appearing to express concern that Democrats could use voting rights lawsuits for partisan purposes rather than to target racial discrimination.
“If race and politics are not disentangled and a Section 2 claim is cynically used as a tool for advancing a partisan end, the VRA’s noble goal will be perverted,” he wrote.
The high court’s decision is the culmination of a long-running battle in Louisiana over Black voters’ representation in Congress. The Supreme Court first heard argument in the case in March 2025, but the justices failed to issue a ruling and made the unusual decision to hear it again this term. (read more)
The leftist/activist justices (Kagan, Sotomayor and the DEI Justice Brown-Jackson), had intentionally been slow-walking their dissent opinion in order to delay the release of the high court ruling released today. The delay tactic was intended to stop ‘Republican’ states from using the majority ruling for redistricting purposes prior to this year’s midterm federal election.
Democrats and Community Activist groups are apoplectic that race is not permitted in the determination of congressional districts. Democrats could stand to lose up to 20 seats in the House of Representatives if race is no longer a factor in making district boundaries. Former President Barack Obama is highly upset at the decision:
President Trump celebrated the elimination of racism in congressional districting.
Opinion Analysis
ByAmy Howe
/Apr 29, 2026
The Supreme Court on Wednesday, in the case of Louisiana v. Callais, struck down a Louisiana congressional map that a group of voters who describe themselves as “non-African American” had challenged as the product of unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. By a vote of 6-3, the justices left in place a ruling by a federal court that barred the state from using the map, which had created a second majority-Black district, in future elections. Although Wednesday’s ruling did not strike down a key provision of the federal Voting Rights Act, as Louisiana and the challengers had asked the court to do, Justice Elena Kagan suggested in her dissent (which was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson) that the majority opinion by Justice Samuel Alito had rendered the provision “all but a dead letter.”
In a 36-page opinion, Alito explained that “the Constitution almost never permits the Federal Government or a State to discriminate on the basis of race.” The question before the court, he said, is “whether compliance with the Voting Rights Act should be added to our very short list of compelling interests that can justify racial discrimination.”
